Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 03-27-2007, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Could we have the text of this inscription, please? Or lacking that, the Greek word that is translated by your source as "oath"?

JG

I don't have it, but will try to find it for you via the book referenced if I can find one.

(may be next day I am working in the city and its raining at lunchtime I'll duck up to the state library...I have couple of other things I need to check)
Sorry I can't be of more help.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-27-2007, 06:24 AM

What is all this fluff about Luke being an "excellent historian"? Just because he claims to have "traced the course of all things accurately" in Luke 1:3?

Especially given his repetition of Mark's profoundly unhistorical three hours of supernatural darkness "over all the Earth" which nobody except the gospel authors seem to have noticed?

JoeWallack · 03-27-2007, 07:10 AM

JW:
Since Defenders of the Christian Bible here either can't or won't provide their own summary of the major Assertians of a defense against Birth Dating error I previously provided one as follows:

"Matthew:
1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born.

Luke
1) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius was in a ruling position related to Syria and involved in a Census.

Using Josephus as a Time reference "Matthew" dates Herod the Great's death to 2 BCE.

Using non-Josephus evidence as a Time reference "Luke" refers to a Quirinius related census in 3 BCE.

Per these Assertians Jesus can be born before Herod the Great dies and after the Quirinius census starts."

JW:
Regarding the above Assertian that Herod the Great died 2 BCE Richard Carrier, one who speaks with Authority, has the following discussion:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ius.html#alive

Quote:

"Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?

For the sake of completeness I will address an argument some Christian apologists advocate out of desperation to preserve Biblical infallibility, drawing on a particular work by Jack Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed., 1998). This is the assertion that in fact Herod the Great was still living in 2 B.C., and since we do not know who was governing Syria then, it was "obviously" Quirinius. Besides having no evidence whatsoever for either fact (and thus it is an entirely ad hoc theory), the evidence we do have stands against such a thesis. For example, Josephus says, point blank, that Varus, not Quintilian, was governor when Herod died (Jewish War 1.9-10). But the argument becomes the most convoluted and obscure we've yet seen, demanding a rather lengthy treatment.

When did Herod die?

First, Herod simply could not have been alive in 2 B.C. (see Note 3.8). Josephus' principal source for the reign of Herod in Jewish Antiquities books 14-17 (and presumably for the parallel material in the earlier Jewish War) is the Histories of Nicolaus of Damascus, a close friend of Herod, who in turn relied on first-hand knowledge and Herod's own Memoires.[17.1] In fact, we know Josephus consulted Herod's Memoires directly, and "others" (tois allois) who wrote about Herod's reign (Jewish Antiquities 15.174). Thus, to propose that he erred in dating the king's death by a full two years (actually three, as Finegan places his death in 1 B.C.) is incredible. Josephus says in Jewish Antiquities 17.191 and Jewish War 1.665 that Herod died thirty-seven years after he was proclaimed king by Rome (40 B.C., a date confirmed by Appian, BC 5.75; and Josephus agrees, with a very precise date: Jewish Antiquities 14.389, so there is no room to move here), and thirty four years after he assumed the crown (37 B.C., as Josephus himself says: Jewish Antiquities 14.487), and since Josephus accurately proceeds through the years of his reign, including several that have independent corroboration (such as "the seventeenth year" of Herod's reign, securely placed by Josephus in 20 B.C., see 17.4), it is absurd to suggest he made any mistake greater than a single year.

Finally, we cannot trust the reported coincidence of a lunar eclipse near to Herod's death (Jewish Antiquities 17.167). Only a partial eclipse is astronomically confirmed for March 13, 4 B.C., which makes this an unlikely candidate, and it is unclear how much time followed the event and his actual death anyway. But that kind of claim was commonly made for great events (in this case a notorious murder) and thus is often not genuine, as I explain in my essay on Thallus. Even if accepted, the only total eclipse in this period fell on 23 March 5 B.C., which would allow his death to fall in 4 B.C., and, in fact, all the events supposed to happen in the interim more easily fit this than the partial eclipse of 4 B.C. Of course, Finegan latches onto a total eclipse in 1 B.C. for his theory, but even to use this he is forced to go against evidence in Jewish literature for the actual day of Herod's death (§ 506) which preceded that eclipse.

Besides this hand waving, Finegan's case is built largely in § 228, where he attempts to re-date Herod's coronation, against all evidence, to 35 B.C. He notes that Josephus reports Jerusalem was taken in the 185th Olympiad (Jewish Antiquities 14.487), which ended in 36 B.C., but this Olympiad also includes 37 B.C., and as Josephus also gives the precise consular year he can only mean that year, disallowing Finegan's hypothesis from the start. But Finegan then notes that Josephus says this was "after twenty seven years" from when Jerusalem was taken by Pompey in 63 B.C., which would refer to 36 B.C. Of course, he fails to admit that this could just as well mean Jerusalem was taken in 64 B.C., or that Josephus erred in his math, or that a scribe mistook eikosiex for eikosiepta, and since Josephus otherwise names the year exactly, the latter two errors would be more likely. But in actual fact, Josephus always counts the short portions of a Roman calendar year as complete years, as many scholars of Josephus have noted, and thus he reckons inclusively, so that "after twenty seven years" actually points to 37 B.C., not 36 as Finegan thinks.

This is obvious even on Finegan's own calculations: consular years began January 1 (§142, §172), but Jewish years began in March (§165, §513), and the Olympiads began in July (§185), and all three used calendars assigning different days to the months, so they often fell out of alignment even with our Julian reckoning (all the more so before the reforms of Julius Caesar in the 40's B.C.). Josephus uses all three schemes simultaneously, thus errors (or ambiguities) of some months are to be expected in any date he gives. Josephus says Pompey took Jerusalem in the third month (Jewish Antiquities 14.66) by Jewish reckoning, in the year 63 B.C. by Roman reckoning, and Herod took the city on the same calendar day in the third month by Jewish reckoning, in the year 37 B.C. by Roman reckoning, which on both occasions was a day of fasting (Jewish Antiquities 14.487). The only known fast in the third month (the month of Sivan, which crosses May and June) is that of the apostasy of Jeroboam "who made Israel to sin" (Sivan 22 or 23).[17.1.5] It cannot be the Day of Atonement as Finegan presumes (§227), which fell in the seventh month. This means that Herod was crowned after twenty seven Roman consular pairs held office, hence after twenty seven calendar years on the Roman system. This is also twenty seven years on the Olympiadic system, since the year 63 includes two Olympiadic calendar years for any event that happens before July. Finegan also argues that Herod might have dated his regnal years from the following new year (Nisan), but even if he reckoned this way he would sooner date his reign from the previous new year, so that there would be no year zero for any of his official acts as king, and so his coins could begin right away showing year 1 of his reign, without having to wait nine months to start counting his years of rule. Indeed, we have no evidence that any ruler in antiquity employed any other practice.

So, the fact of the matter is, Josephus reckoned Herod's reign as beginning in 40 B.C. with a coronation in 37 B.C. There is no way around this, and thus when he dates Herod's death, he can only mean 4 B.C., since he relates it to both events precisely (and one is confirmed by another extant historian). That Josephus is wrong about something so central to his histories and for which he had such good, eyewitness sources is simply not credible. Finegan knows all scholars agree with this.[17.2] In fact, Finegan knows that all external and circumstantial evidence is against him. For example, it is a fact that all three regnal dates of Herod's successors match a coronation date of 4 B.C. (§ 516). This includes Archelaus, whose dates are also corroborated by Cassius Dio (55.27.6), and Josephus does not have Archelaus declared king until Herod dies (Jewish War 1.670), but has Archelaus deposed in 6 A.D. after 10 years rule (see above), which also puts Herod's death in 4 B.C. And then there is Antipas, whose dates are confirmed in extant coinage, according to Finegan himself. Finegan tries to suggest against this evidence that all three of these kings were made co-regents with Herod in 4 B.C. until his death in 1 B.C., a claim that is groundless and prima facie absurd. With Antipater, that would make five kings ruling simultaneously! It is inconceivable that Josephus would not mention such a remarkable action. Indeed, the political atmosphere of heated tensions and indecision about who would inherit makes such a massive coregency profoundly unthinkable for Herod--his coregency with Antipater (the only one Josephus mentions) was already such a disaster that Herod had him executed a week before he himself died, and the other three were only assigned their territories by Herod's will and confirmed by Augustus after Herod's death. Josephus is absolutely clear on this. And it is the only logical way things could have happened."

JW:
Carrier notes the following Direct and Ancient evidence contradicting the Assertian that Herod the Great died 2 BCE:

1) Josephus states that Varus was Governor of Syria when Herod the Great died. Carrier has mistakenly added "not Quintilian" when he meant "not Quirinius" and I have notified him of this. Thank god I noticed this before Steven and Jeffrey!

2) Josephus identifies the year Herod the Great was declared King by Rome and states that he died 37 years later.

3) Josephus identifies the year Herod the Great began to rule and states that he died 34 years later.

4) The information Josephus gives for Archelaus puts Herod the Great's death at 4 BCE.

5) The extant coinage of Herod Antipas.

Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

judge · 03-27-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
I Am probably guilty here of trying to overstate the evidence for 4 BCE by saying this coin is Direct evidence of Herod the Great dying 4 BCE. Better said is that it is consistent with a 4 BCE date. If Herod Antipas died 40 CE than you could have a year 45 regnal coin if it was minted early in the 45th year so that the closest total years of reign would be 44 rather than 45.

I still dont' follow. If the maximum total years were 44 (acording to a 4BCE death) then 45 must be wrong.

Is it not possible that Herod antedated his reign?
There does seem evidence this type of thing occurred.

Quote:

“For they did not succeed one another legitimately, but each of them, even while his rival was alive and still ruling, believed himself to be emperor from the moment that he even got a glimpse of the throne.” (Dio, Roman History, 66.17.5)

Apparently coins show antedating was common? According to this

judge · 03-27-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Carrier notes the following Direct and Ancient evidence contradicting the Assertian that Herod the Great died 2 BCE:

I think the main argument from apologists is a 1BCE date for the death of Herod not a 2 BCE date. another example is here

When did Herod the great reign. Andrew Steinmann Concordia University River Forest ,Il

The main argument seems to be around the eclipse.

judge · 03-28-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

My take on Josephus Ant.17-6:4 is that there was a fast, then Herod sacked the High Priest and killed another guy called Matthias on the day before there was a lunar eclipse. Herod then fell sick and then after various attempts at healing (involving some travelling) he died. This was before the passover Ant.17-9:3.

According to

Jewish_calendar, the Jewish Month in the Second Temple era began at the first cresent moon.

Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th of Tishrei. According to this link that would have been on the 11th or 12th of September in 5BC. The eclipse was on the 15th of September. Passover was approx. 6 months later. What is wrong with this timetable? Everything seems to fit.

Ok , as I mentioned the date of Yom Kippur can vary due to seasonal irregularites.

It appears that in 5BCE it fell on the 11th October, at least according to this site Calendar comparison for 5BC

It does mention that it is not 100% accurate ...

Quote:

Although approximately correct, it may differ by a day or two – or in some years by a month from what was actually observed, based on such things as the timing of the barley harvest and the practices used for defining the commencement of months. The calculated Hebrew calendar displayed at this web site is known to match what has been in use by the majority of the Jews from the time that the rules of calendar calculation were made public in the fourth century AD. These rules (carefully guarded by the priesthood and with adjustments to keep everything in its proper season) were apparently in use for many centuries before that.

Steven Avery · 03-28-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

What is all this fluff about Luke being an "excellent historian"? Just because he claims to have "traced the course of all things accurately" in Luke 1:3?

Hi Jack,

Actually we touched in depth on one little aspect .. Roman titles .. and Luke was shown to write with knowledge and precision. Spin had posted about ten times the same blunder that there wasn't anything there from Luke (except getting a few tetrarchs right) and a close examination shows that Luke gets the right titles in the right lands in the right times. Not an easy task for a historian even if Luke is writing early (c40-60 AD). Virtually impossible to occur for a late-date Luke or for less-than-superb historian.

Your note above is a good indication why we would do well to review other aspects of Lukan historicity more. This is in fact the essential underlying issue. Luke's many accurate geographical and historical accuracies, including his knowledge of Roman law, the cities and lands and islands and buildings of the Mediteranean region, cultural understandings and Jewish knowledge.

And we could study the vaporization of some earlier claims against Luke.
Those who cannot learn from history ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Especially given his repetition of Mark's profoundly unhistorical three hours of supernatural darkness "over all the Earth" which nobody except the gospel authors seem to have noticed?

Keep in mind that your chronology assumes Markan priority.
I beleive Luke likely authored before Mark and Matthew and there
are other priority theories as well.

Luke 23:44
And it was about the sixth hour,
and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened,
and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Matthew 27:45
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness
over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Matthew 27:51
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain
from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake,
and the rocks rent;

Mark 15:33
And when the sixth hour was come,
there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Mark 15:38
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

Clearly it is not expected that the skeptics will consider the supernatural events recorded in Luke to be historical. That does not fit their weltanschauung.

However the supernatural events at the time of the crucifixion, including the darkness, do have non-Gospel collaboration, your claim above notwithstanding. Rather than reinvent the dialog-wheel, here is a review.

The IIDB threads include.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=63948
Did They See That Darkness? (09/2003)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126901
Darkness at Crucifixion & Matthew forgery (06/2005)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...95#post2531495
The Best Naturalistic Explanation for the Resurrection (07/2005)
(Overcomer gives references)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72048&page=2
Did Jesus Christ Really Live, by Marshall Gauvin (08/2005)
(Samson C gives references)

Other resources.

http://www.textexcavation.com/phlegontestimonium.html
Phlegon of Tralles on the passion phenomena.
As cited by various Christian authorities.

John Gill summary
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/ge...=027&verse=045
it is evident, that it is taken notice of, and recorded by Heathen historians and chronologers, as by Phlegon, and others, referred to by Eusebius. The Roman archives are appealed unto for the truth of it by Tertullian; and it is asserted by Suidas, that Dionysius the Areopagite, then an Heathen, saw it in Egypt; and said,

Richard Carrier skeptic viewpoint of Thallus
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html
Thallus: an Analysis (1999)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html
Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d. --Thallus (c. 50-75ad)

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thallcomp.html
Thallus by Two
A Comparison of the work of Glenn Miller and Richard Carrier on Thallus

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no8...ifixn.html#R10
The Darkness During the Crucifixion - Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...HistJesus5.htm
III.Ancient Secular Historians C. Thallus(c. 50-75AD) D.Phlegon

http://www.oxleigh.freeserve.co.uk/sstb.ch.08.htm
The "Olympiades" of Phlegon - Arthur Eedle (uses wrong Greek word)

Please keep in mind that (as Julius Africanus points out) this is not an eclipse that occurred. The historical TR reading is "darkness" although some alex manuscripts got that wrong and therefore it is wrong in some modern versions and commentaries. The eclipse reading is in just a few manuscripts and the darkness reading has, to anyone not into the prooftext from Aleph and B mentality, overwhelming support.

It is likely that the early church writers also do not use the "eclipse" word, supporting the ultra-large-majority reading.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf0...m#P1815_531580
Tertullian - On Fasting
And so the "pressure" must be maintained up to that hour in which the orb-involved from the sixth hour in a general darkness

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf0...#P7995_1945774
Origen - Against Celsus
"and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?"
"when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness?"
"He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention ... Phlegon"

============
HISTORICAL ERRORS LIKE ECLIPSE IN ALEX / MV TEXTS

www.bbaptist.org/which_version.pdf
Which Version is the Bible ? - Floyd Nolen Jones

Discussion: The Greek verb "ekleipw" (ekleipw) is quite common
and has the basic meaning "to fail" or "to end", but when used of the
sun or the moon it refers to an eclipse. Moreover, our word "eclipse"
comes from this Greek root. Indeed, such versions as Moffatt,
Twentieth Century, Authentic, Phillips, NEB, New Berkeley, NAB
and Jerusalem overtly state that the sun was eclipsed. While
versions such as NASB, TEV and NIV avoid the word "eclipse", the
normal meaning of the eclectic text that they follow is "the sun being
eclipsed."

These references go over a number of these alexandrian text errors.
(and add Gerash as a major blunder too) at ..

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/sho...5&postcount=18
Matters of Faith - White Knight

http://www.esgm.org/ingles/appendh.h.htm
What Difference Does it Make? - Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 03-28-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote: